New York City FC Kit and Badge Thread

[blink922]

The circle badge is nice. The other one looks like evertons badge. Shouldn't it say soccer club instead of football seen as it is an American club.

Quite a few MLS clubs are "FC's" rather than "SC's." Looks more professional I suppose.

 

[Mayor West]

The circle one is great. I do wonder if they really are going to be called football club?

 

[Falastur]

The circle badge is nice. The other one looks like evertons badge. Shouldn't it say soccer club instead of football seen as it is an American club.

Quite a few MLS clubs are "FC's" rather than "SC's." Looks more professional I suppose.

I think it's more about appealing to the "hardcore" US supporters, who tend to judge themselves on their support by how "European" (read: not necessarily English) they act.

The circle one is great. I do wonder if they really are going to be called football club?

Yes they are. The name is already confirmed as NYCFC not SC.

I actually don't think a single MLS club uses the word "soccer" in their name (many don't use either word) but I could be wrong.

 

[blink922]

I actually don't think a single MLS club uses the word "soccer" in their name (many don't use either word) but I could be wrong.

Correct, though a few use "soccer balls" in their badges which I despise. Glad NYCFC didn't go this route.

 

[kun]

The circle badge is nice. The other one looks like evertons badge. Shouldn't it say soccer club instead of football seen as it is an American club.

Quite a few MLS clubs are "FC's" rather than "SC's." Looks more professional I suppose.

I think it's more about appealing to the "hardcore" US supporters, who tend to judge themselves on their support by how "European" (read: not necessarily English) they act.

The circle one is great. I do wonder if they really are going to be called football club?

Yes they are. The name is already confirmed as NYCFC not SC.

I actually don't think a single MLS club uses the word "soccer" in their name (many don't use either word) but I could be wrong.

Chicago Fire Soccer club do, as will the side joining the league with NYFC in 2015 Orlando City SC. Beckham's new team seems to be called Miami Major League Soccer Team.

Many teams seem to use FC, but for some of them 'FC' seems to be part of the full title, like it doesn't stand for anything.

 

[blink922]

Quite a few MLS clubs are "FC's" rather than "SC's." Looks more professional I suppose.

I think it's more about appealing to the "hardcore" US supporters, who tend to judge themselves on their support by how "European" (read: not necessarily English) they act.

The circle one is great. I do wonder if they really are going to be called football club?

Yes they are. The name is already confirmed as NYCFC not SC.

I actually don't think a single MLS club uses the word "soccer" in their name (many don't use either word) but I could be wrong.

Chicago Fire Soccer club do, as will the side joining the league with NYFC in 2015 Orlando City SC. Beckham's new team seems to be called Miami Major League Soccer Team.

Many teams seem to use FC, but for some of them 'FC' seems to be part of the full title, like it doesn't stand for anything.

I think Chicago has moved away from the SC, can't recall seeing it in any of their promotional material in the last few years. I actually didn't know their full name included the Soccer Club tag.

 

[alky313]

When your daughter club has 2 nicer badges than you do :|

 

[Falastur]

Beckham's team is only called that because he hasn't even picked a name yet. That said, he's not starting until 2017.

 

[nmc]

The circle one is great. I do wonder if they really are going to be called football club?

Agreed the round one is top notch.

 

[nmc]

Beckham's team is only called that because he hasn't even picked a name yet. That said, he's not starting until 2017.

If they are waiting for Dozy Dave to come up with something - god help them.

 

[Falastur]

Beckham's team is only called that because he hasn't even picked a name yet. That said, he's not starting until 2017.

If they are waiting for Dozy Dave to come up with something - god help them.

That's why they gave him four years...

 

[ChicagoBlue]

No interest in NYCFC, however the badge comp just came up on Facebook and I have to say the circle one instantly reminds me of our badge before the monstrosity we have now. Looks classy as fuck.

Yes, gets my vote.

The one on the left is a reflection of the NYPD officers badge (shield), which gives a nod to the location. However, I prefer the shield from the first few posts on thus thread, as opposed to the two here! Of these two, even though I prefer the more "football generic" (classic) round crest on the right, I think the one on the left is more NYC iconic and unique to the NYC team.

 

[nmc]

The one on the left reminds me of the Mets - which can hardly be a great call when I think we are trying to woo Yankees supporters.

 

[nwhn3]

One on the right looks similar to inter milans badge

 

[S04]

Nice play on symbolism on both badges.. The left one got the NYC seal crest frame while the right one got two small NY subway tokens left and right.

 

[SrilankanBlue]

One on the right looks similar to inter milans badge

Exactly what i was thinking,

 

[CitizenTID]

 

[Shaelumstash]

I really like the circle one though. I'm really surprised how neither badge seems to have anything at all in common with MCFC though. I assumed the whole point of expanding in to other leagues was to expand our "brand". Other than the name "City" I can't see any way in which this increases our brand recognition whatsoever.

Both badges look more closely affiliated to Rangers or Inter Milan than Manchester City. I think it would be impossible to say either of these badges use anything whatsoever of our "Intellectual property" of our branding / badge. No eagle, no latin motif, no Manchester COA ship / shield. In fact, nothing whatsoever that is in any way similar to MCFC.

Think if the Chicago Bulls launched a basketball franchise in Manchester called the Manchester Bulls. They used the same iconic bull logo, the team played in the same iconic red kit, only the word 'Chicago' was replaced with the word 'Manchester'. Everyone would know the teams were affiliated, it would expand the Bulls brand, the Manchester team would benefit from being associated with the parent brand, and would likely have to pay the Chicago company royalties for the privilege.

Looking at this NYCFC badge though, no one would be able to tell there was any affiliation whatsoever to Manchester City, unless they were explicitly told about it.

There is nothing stopping any other team in the world being called "City" and nothing preventing them from playing in sky blue. If they wanted to use elements of our badge though, they'd have to pay us millions in fees to licence the intellectual property. I assumed this was one of the main reasons for the expansion teams of the "City Group". They pay MCFC millions to be able to use elements of our branding / badge, and it's another revenue stream for the club.

The fact the NYCFC badge uses zero of our intellectual property is just a strange decision for me, I kind of thought that was the major purpose of launching the team.

 

[CitizenTID]

I really like the circle one though. I'm really surprised how neither badge seems to have anything at all in common with MCFC though. I assumed the whole point of expanding in to other leagues was to expand our "brand". Other than the name "City" I can't see any way in which this increases our brand recognition whatsoever.

Both badges look more closely affiliated to Rangers or Inter Milan than Manchester City. I think it would be impossible to say either of these badges use anything whatsoever of our "Intellectual property" of our branding / badge. No eagle, no latin motif, no Manchester COA ship / shield. In fact, nothing whatsoever that is in any way similar to MCFC.

Think if the Chicago Bulls launched a basketball franchise in Manchester called the Manchester Bulls. They used the same iconic bull logo, the team played in the same iconic red kit, only the word 'Chicago' was replaced with the word 'Manchester'. Everyone would know the teams were affiliated, it would expand the Bulls brand, the Manchester team would benefit from being associated with the parent brand, and would likely have to pay the Chicago company royalties for the privilege.

Looking at this NYCFC badge though, no one would be able to tell there was any affiliation whatsoever to Manchester City, unless they were explicitly told about it.

There is nothing stopping any other team in the world being called "City" and nothing preventing them from playing in sky blue. If they wanted to use elements of our badge though, they'd have to pay us millions in fees to licence the intellectual property. I assumed this was one of the main reasons for the expansion teams of the "City Group". They pay MCFC millions to be able to use elements of our branding / badge, and it's another revenue stream for the club.

The fact the NYCFC badge uses zero of our intellectual property is just a strange decision for me, I kind of thought that was the major purpose of launching the team.

The less it feels to New Yorkers like they are a "mini Manchester City" the more will follow NYCFC meaning it will be more successful. Plus I'm happier having affiliated clubs that have their own identity, if we made a load of "mini Manchester City" clubs we'd be losing part of our uniqueness as well

 

[Shaelumstash]

I really like the circle one though. I'm really surprised how neither badge seems to have anything at all in common with MCFC though. I assumed the whole point of expanding in to other leagues was to expand our "brand". Other than the name "City" I can't see any way in which this increases our brand recognition whatsoever.

Both badges look more closely affiliated to Rangers or Inter Milan than Manchester City. I think it would be impossible to say either of these badges use anything whatsoever of our "Intellectual property" of our branding / badge. No eagle, no latin motif, no Manchester COA ship / shield. In fact, nothing whatsoever that is in any way similar to MCFC.

Think if the Chicago Bulls launched a basketball franchise in Manchester called the Manchester Bulls. They used the same iconic bull logo, the team played in the same iconic red kit, only the word 'Chicago' was replaced with the word 'Manchester'. Everyone would know the teams were affiliated, it would expand the Bulls brand, the Manchester team would benefit from being associated with the parent brand, and would likely have to pay the Chicago company royalties for the privilege.

Looking at this NYCFC badge though, no one would be able to tell there was any affiliation whatsoever to Manchester City, unless they were explicitly told about it.

There is nothing stopping any other team in the world being called "City" and nothing preventing them from playing in sky blue. If they wanted to use elements of our badge though, they'd have to pay us millions in fees to licence the intellectual property. I assumed this was one of the main reasons for the expansion teams of the "City Group". They pay MCFC millions to be able to use elements of our branding / badge, and it's another revenue stream for the club.

The fact the NYCFC badge uses zero of our intellectual property is just a strange decision for me, I kind of thought that was the major purpose of launching the team.

The less it feels to New Yorkers like they are a "mini Manchester City" the more will follow NYCFC meaning it will be more successful. Plus I'm happier having affiliated clubs that have their own identity, if we made a load of "mini Manchester City" clubs we'd be losing part of our uniqueness as well

I can appreciate everything you are saying mate, and it all makes sense from a New York supporters point of view, even from a MCFC supporters point of view.

But the point I'm making is that from a commercial point of view, what is the purpose of this for Manchester City as a business?

I assumed it was to spread awareness of our brand, but these badges don't do that in any way whatsoever. I assumed we would be licensing our Intellectual property to NYCFC, and they would be paying us a fee for it. But these badges don't use anything at all of our IP, so we couldn't charge them a licensing fee.